tv Board of Appeals SFGTV November 24, 2021 12:00am-3:01am PST
>> president honda will be the presiding officer tonight and he is joined by commissioner anne lass russ ex chang and lopez. rick swig is absent and zachary will provide the board with any needed legal advice for items 7 and 8 and deputy city attorney brad russ' will provide the board with the agenda. at the control is the board's legal assistant and i'm julie rosenberg, the executive director. you will be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. the man of the hour scott sanchez, deputy zoning administrator representing the planning department and tina cam, enforcement manager, joseph duffy, deputy directing overtimw
green with dbi and naville and leo, with san francisco public works bureau he of street use and mapping and phillip young enforcement and legal affairs manager for the sfmta division of taxi services as well as danny young from the sfmta. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so he will not disrupt the proceedings. appellants, permit olders are given sen minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated must include the comments with not the sen to three minutes periods. members of the public can address the board and time may be limit today two fins if it's gone or if there are a lung number of speakers and and 30 seconds before the time is up.
four votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a permit to determination. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing to board rules or hearing schedule, e-mail board staff at board of appeals at sfgovernment.org. public access and participation are paramount importance to the board and every effort has been made to replicate the in-person process. we are pro vowing close captioning go to sf gov tv note that it will be rebroadcast on friday the 4:00.
>> and again, sf gov tv is broadcasting and across and if you are watching the life stream broadcast. when you call into block your phone number when calling, first dial star 67 and listen and dial star 9 which is equivalent of raising your hands so we know you want to speak. you will have two or throw minutes depending on the length of the agenda and the volume of speakers. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning before your time is up. please note there's a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast in livestreamed on tv and the internet and it's important people return off the volume on their tv and computers otherwise they will interfere in the meeting. if anyone on zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can
make a request. or send an e-mail to board of appeals. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public who may speak without taking an oath. if you intend to testify any of tonight's proceedings, raise your right-hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. if you have not speaking put your zoom speaker on mute. we'll move to item number 1. this is a special item consideration and possible adoption of resolution which makes findings to allow tell conference meetings under california government section
54953e. so, commissioners, we need to adopt this resolution in order to continue the teleconference meetings. >> president honda: i'd make that motion. >> do we need any public comment an this? >> yes. >> ok. >> so, we have a motion from president honda to adopt this resolution. is there any public comment on this item. if so, please raise your hand. >> on that motion, commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commish chang. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and the resolution is adopted. we are now moving on to item number 2 which is general public comment and this is the on a matter within the board and that is not on tonight's calender and is there any member and it's not on tonight's calender so please raise your happened.
commissioner comments and questions. commissioner. >> president honda: i would want to commend on an amazing job and your predecessor is in the room. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? we have move on the are the minutes from november 10th, 2021 meeting. >> president honda: unless we have changes, additions or modifications, would anyone like to make a motion to put those into the minutes? >> so moved. >> president honda: thank you. >> ok. do we have any public comment on
commissioner lazarus motion to adopt the minutes? if so, please raise your hand. commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 4-0 and the minutes are a adopted.this is item number 5, recognition of scott sanchez with the san francisco planning department on his contributions to the board of appeals and the city of san francisco. scott sanchez is retiring from city service. so, i will hand it over to you, president honda. >> president honda: well, first of all, we're start off with the mayor. i know this is hard to see but i have a proclamation for scott. this is one of two that he has received in the last three years. just so you know, right. and so, on a personal note, i'll tell you, when i came to this
body, nine years ago, i met mr. sanchez. we had a light snack after that meeting and i left the meeting thinking oh my god this guy is super bright. he is like an encyclopedia i found out that that's his nickname is encyclopedia scott. this may be redundant in 218 he was the zoning administrator, the youngest in san francisco to this date. in 2018, he stepped down to deputy. i think he stayed on just so that he can stay on this body as our counsel. i believe that i probably heard over a thousand appeals where scott was representing the department. i can tell you that he is amazing. his ability to be fair and
impartial and above all to inform this body with very correct information so we can make a decision is just astounding. i mean, he actually made our jobs so much easier. the person that is in his shoes, it's like a shaquille o'neil size 24. i'm trying to hold it in and not cry to be honest. scott is just an amazing person. i have enjoyed my nine years working with him and i definitely consider him a friend and i wish him all the best going forward. give the wife and the kid a big hug from uncle daryl and thank you. who would like to, i i see commissioner lazarus. >> thank you. like you, i'm going have to hold it in as well. i was reminded of another pretty
notorious that took place he says i don't know if this is the right time for it but i kind of just want to ask, is this like a for sure thing? i just had to ask. and i think that president honda summed up so nicely, all of the amazing characteristics that you are brought to this position. it really makes for people like commissioners, public service just a absolute joy and we've been particularly blessed here, i think, at the board of appeals with all the departmental representatives with executive directors past and present but the role that you play is so critical in so many of our items
and we know we can count on you to present exactly what we need to know and to not troy to guide us to a particular decision but put the information in front of us so we can make an informed decision. so, if it's a sad day and i wish you all the best and whoever hires you is one fortunate employer. >> it's hard but scott, i mean, i think you have to know that i have admired you for a long time, starting at the planning department. gosh, eight years ago and was there for about four years and was fortunate to work with you on complicated projects and you lived up to your
professionalism, your knowledge, you are like an encyclopedia and it's amazing and able to help that form the interpretation that he makes that informed a lot of development in lands use planning in san francisco. the consistency to which you apply that knowledge and as a result the fairness and i think it is incredibly meaningful for your professionalism and all the way you conduct that role and also on this board. i feel very sad for this city that you will. >> debbie: parting but i understand and cory t is an
amazing zoning administrator and knowledgeable and i know she will do a fabulous job. i would be remised if i didn't sing your praises and let you know how much of a leader you have served for the planning department and the board and the city of san francisco so thank you for all of your years of service and your amazingness. >> president honda: thank you. commissioner lopez. >> >> president honda: could you hold on for one second. you have a bad echo. is it just me? everyone else can hear it. >> i could hear it. it was choppy. i'm sorry.
>> i'll just say i'm trying not to take it as a bad omen for -- let me try to stop the video to see if that helps the connection. is that better? >> when you get the likelihood of success for my service, you decided to now through departure right when i go your service and for your guidance, even in my short period of service here to date, and i can definitely want to echo everybody's words and just express that your reputation for excellence and fairness proceeds you without fail many of the folks who i spoke to about the opportunity to join this board sang your
praises and gave me the heads-up that you were a very valuable resource to the board and so, you know, i felt like i had a great preview and insights to the skills of mr. sanchez before i showed up. your words and guidance and perspective have been valuable to me as a rookie commissioner just coming into see a lot of musicians for the first time it's been super valuable for me personally and i think what i value most from your perspective is based on my reveal materials you really do provide us with an unbalanced or unbiased opinion and view on the facts and that is just -- i think that speaks to your skills and integrity and just the professionalism with which you have approached this role and so i thank you for that
and wish you the best and whatever is coming next. >> president honda: thank you, commissioner lopez, since we're going in order of active -- >> i do have a statement from vice president swig and i let's read the statement from vice press swig. >> i'm sorry that my absence from tonight's pridings presents me from participating in scott chan says. sanchez. on his retirement from the planning department. his retirement is a tremendous loss to both the planning department and to the support that the department provides to the board of appeals. mr. sanchez professionally has consistently provided fair and accurate information to the board of appeals at least during my tenure on the boa. his support has been appreciated and he is provided constant good and constructive information to all the best possible decision-making capabilities at least for this commissioner, on
behalf of the is the sense of san francisco. personally, scott has always shown compassion, the highest level of ethics and evidence of always being the kindest of souls. i will miss his on going presence during our board of appeals meetings and i wish him every success as his life moves forward. thank you, scott, for all that you have done here. i want to briefly say a statement from me, before moving on to public comment, scott, i just want to thank you for the guidance you provided to the board and board staff and you ae intelligent and fair and you care about the people and the well-being of san francisco. i'm very grateful that i have the opportunity to work with you and learn from you and i wish you the very best in your next chapter. >> president honda: thank you. so, frank, i'm going to move it over here. our previous executive director, cynthia goldstein.
>> thank you for this opportunity to publicly praise scott. i may be repetitive of some of the some of the comments but i hope scott absorbs a fraction of this and go back to listen because he deserves to have this amount of praise. scott played a big role in my tenure at the board serving as the zoning administrator for most of the years i was there. and he was always incredibly helpful to me while i learned about the city's land use laws and procedures and processes he patiently answered questions and helped me through dense planning code right and i saw him equally patient with the many members of the public that he helped with, most of whom may not be familiar with this type of proceeding at all so his ability to work with all different types of people was very impressive. i think of scott as one of the
smartest person in his mastery of the planning code and nuances but his remarkable ability to remember amazing details and facts, dates, names, codes, dimensions he doesn't forget anything but what impressed me most about scott was his level of professionalism. some years back he asked me to sit with him on a hiring panel and in the course of a few days, we met with candidates who in one way or another revealed their fairly clear bias on how development should proceed in the city and it was then that i realized that scott had never revealed that to me and his actions before the board or even in our conversations. i had taken his neutrality for granted but those interviews really under scored for me just how much integrity scott has. he is just such a thoughtful,
kind and interesting person and i'm thankful for all he did to support me at board and it's been a pleasure to know him and i look forward to continuing that relationship and i wish him all the best as he moved forward. >> president honda: thank you. my mentor and previous board of appeals president commissioner frank fung from the planning commission. >> thank you, president honda. you know, i think that out of all the people present today, outside of tina tam i've known scott the longest. quite a few years ago, when i first met this young man, i thought to myself, after a short discussion that this is a smart kid. and as he continued to develop through out the years, thank you could see however, that not only
was the intelligence that everybody else has mentioned but the humanity that he brought to his position clearly showed, as we all know, codes are not perfect. and he exemplified that as he approached his planning issues. the only question that i have for scott is, since you are so much younger than me, how come you are retiring before me? in any event -- >> no comment on that. >> good luck. i know you will find many things to do and we look forward to continuing to see you socially and not professionally. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner fung. patrick the directing of building inspections. >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here about
scott. you know, a lot of the things that have been said to this point are the things we all know to be charter traits of scott. about 10 years ago, when i was living on the island of dbi and we didn't know there was much around us, i was dealing with some awkward case that had planning associated with it and i really didn't know what the resolution was. joe duffy, my friend, introduced me to scott and scott and his way of saying things made it seem very simple and i thought how could i not have figured this out. scott had that way about him, maybe it would be good news or maybe it would be news that wasn't so good. the news got was like just the facts. he was a straight shooter. he still is a straight shooter.
i don't know why i said was. when i think about scott, like, random words come to mind that are not prioritized or anything but i think about the steady hand, integrity, is the guy who stands up there and mostly everybody else in the world would be rattled and scott is just standing there like there's really not much going on around him. and since the fairness, i've never seen him being -- exhibiting any bias. you know, he never really spoke ill, i've never heard him or heard anyone say that he spoke ill of anyone. you know, i think a lot of things have been said already but you know, he is going to be a loss and scott, i can't believe you are getting ahead of
me with this retirement thing. that's what is saddening the lost impact is losing you from the city and you've always been a wonderful resource and maybe we can convince you to come back and join us again. i wish you all the best in your retirement, if that's what it ends up being and stay in touch. take care. >> president honda: thank you. we have deputy director joseph duffy. >> thank you president honda. i just want to say a few brief words because i don't think i can add anymore of the beautiful words that have been said about scott. scott, i told you myself and i'll tell to everyone else, it's been a pleasure working with you at the board of appeals and it was something that i looked forward to on a weekly basis or when we had our meetings and all this working with you and you
are a really very, very helpful resource for dbi as we dealt with some of our planning and building issues, not even anything to do with the board avenue peels and i would say i look forward to doing some hikes up with you and maybe with the dogs and we can talk about that off line just all the best and you are such a genuine person and best of luck for the future and it's great to see all the old face and here to see them as well. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. our deputy city attorney, brad russy. >> just to say very quickly that i wholeheartedly agree with everything that everyone has said so far about scott. this is a huge loss, his departure from the city. i know half of my office and i know there are many people who
tremendously respect scott and enjoy working with him and are very sad to see him go and i know that on my behalf, he is made my job, advising the board, a lot easier and i'm going to miss that. good luck, scott. >> president honda: thank you, deputy city attorney. in closing, my last statement would be that you know, i know that i'm going to be on the board too long if i see scott coming in front of the board and not representing the city and he is in private practice and then the other thing is i'm sure not many of you know that he was in cia operative, so maybe the cia is calling him back. again, scott, tote love and i bow down to you my friend, all the best. >> thank you president honda. is there any other public comment on this item?
please raise your hand. if there's no public comment, we'd like to give -- i you are not public comment. i was going to call your name. we would like to hear from the deputy zoning add straight to administrator,mr. sanchez. >> i usually have words for everything but not right now. it's really just such an honor and a privilege to have appeared before the board for as long as i have. there have been maybe 350 to 400 hearings sings 2007. i tried counting how many frank fung has done but i gave up. working at board, for the board has been the highlight of my public service career and it definitely was a condition of me staying on in the department. it's something is that i've always really loved doing and it's been the highlight of my week. it's the challenging work coming before the board never knowing
what to expect. the issues that may be raised during the hearings and the questions that are maybe asked and even how long the hearing may go, sometimes the shorter the agenda the longer the meeting and i couldn't explain that to my family or give good estimates when the hearing might end. i learned so much from the board, from all the the whole family that's involved here and the city agencies and the parties and the public and it's just been such a growth experience for me. i stayed in long if i didn't have this opportunity the integrity of the board and i've found the board does the right thing, that's the mission and the goal of the board and i respect the board members -- >> someone has a tv on in the background or a computer.
>> go ahead, scott. >> speaking to the integrity of the board and that's one of the reasons that i enjoy before being you guys and week in and week out. you are diligent in following the rules and compassionate and carrying about the issues raised and whether or not you can address them in the hearings, you listen to resolve these cases, i appreciate what everyone said how my work is perceived because i felt that to be successful, my job, it's not about win are or losing but providing facts and information that you need to make an inform decision and it is such a pleasure to have that as my goal. if i can do that and do that in a way sometimes i'm looking up answers during the hearings and sometimes i've been able to prepare before. there's certainly a level of anxiety that i have foray
forappearing before the board. i try my best to represent myself, to represent the department, and the city and it can be a bit exhausting. i'm looking forward to having wednesday nights off moving forward. but any success that i can claim to have had is really based on a long list of city staff and i won't name everyone but i want to thank and highlight some of the mentors, role models and friends and most of you are here today. julie, and cynthia, the best executive directors that you could hope to have and holding the board to that level of integrity, and innovating the board too and updating your systems over the years. bob feldman was one of my early role models for a public servant and just the tremendous work
that he always had as well and the legal assistance that you have, alex longway and victor and it's been amazing to work with as well and i was trying to figure out what the board does and i would call victor and bob and i just tremendously appreciate that and the city attorney's team is so deep and brad is representing amazingly now and there have been so many tremendous city attorneys that represented you in the past and we have of course our own city attorneys on the other side of the theoretical wall they have there. kristen jensen, kate stacey who retired and judy, a whole amazing team. the best attorneys that i have worked with. the folks at dbi, pat and joe are amazing and it's been a pleasure to work with them and i work with them very closely over
the last 10 years and the level of integrity that they have dbi is in good hands moving forward with these guys to just kind of help make everything work better. and the past, lawrence corner field and i want to say about joe too, he has a full time job and he has a board of appeals. so, the amount of work that he does is incredible. he is hard-working and diligent and i feel bad because he leaves the hearings with more work than when he came in because he has got extra side visits, extra inspections and the folks at dpw and it's been an amazing team and everyone from dph, mta, police, every single agency that comes before this board well represents them and lastly, the planning department staff and their amazing work ask diligence
pursue to the planning goals and the cases that come before you have been worked on for years and i'm trying in a couple weeks to understand it and to present it to you and i couldn't do that if it wasn't based on the excellent work of all our staff. cory teague, our amazing zoning administrator who i believe that i'm happy and proud he is the zoning administrator. i think we're all in really good hands with him. the executive assistant who has been behind the scenes there for hearings supporting me which was the zoning administrator and supporting our work on the board of appeals and we've been a lot through the years and i'm going to miss them and lastly, tina tam, you are an incredible hands with tina. tina, i had taken over from tina in 2007. she was doing the board of appeals before and she taught me everything that i know about the board of appeals. she has amazing experience and
architecture and preservation and so many skills she can bring to the board that i don't have and i think you guys are in good hands with tina and i can rest very easily on wednesday nights now and probably still tune in a little bit. thank you for everything. >> thank you so much. thank you for your comments. so i guess we will move on to item number 6. and thank you everyone for joining us and providing the comments for scott sanchez. so, we are now moving on to item number 6. this is appeal number 21-066, laura kemp versus san francisco public works and subject property is 231 dwight street appealing the issuance on july 6th, 2021 to mobile net of california lp of a wireless box permit and it's installed a wireless box the proposed personal wireless services is in a zoning location and this is
permit number 21-wr-00051. for further consideration. note, on september 1st, 2021, upon motion by president honed dark the board voted 5-0 to continue this item to november 17th, so that the permit holder can send out proper information required by article 25. so, given that the onus was on the permit holder, we'll hear from the permit holder first. represented by paul albritain. you have three minutes. >> good evening, members of the board can you hear me? >> yes, welcome. >> thank you. it was actually wonderful to see everybody past and present and scott and i didn't want to interrupt your participation but he has been marvelous in terms of his knowledge and willingness to listen. we did exactly as you requested. we took the time, the 60 days to
go back and renotice 300 feet mailing to 101 individuals. we sent notice to all of the neighborhood associations within 600 feet for three years, portola, visitation valley and excel seer. we had 300 feet of the facility and we of course noticed all three supervisors' offices and nine, 10 and 11. we had a dialogue with supervisor ronen and answered all of her questions. and so we tried to go -- we did a courtesy e-mail to the available e-mail list. we tried to go above and beyond to renotice everybody for a full second time. we took a direction from your council that not to just renotice the supervisor but everybody. there was no further appeal of any kind and so we would encourage you to affirm the department of public-health, the planning department and the department of public works and i
want to tell you that they all reissued their findings so any errors in the planning department process was remedied, the department of public works also issued a new final determination so the whole process was redone and and the # r1 area and i'll repeat, you remember, we just are putting a cross bar on this pole. the nearest residents, the exposure will be 400 times below the federal standard. we're here to answer any questions. i've got our contractor on-line and can show you the noticing affidavits that were attached to our supplemental letter we sent into and we have bill of hammett medicine available to answer any questions that you have and we hope that you will be able to
reaffirm the decision of the departments and approve this small wireless facility for verizon wireless. with that, i'll conclude my comments. >> we'll now hear from the department. you have throw minutes. >> hello. >> welcome. >> service public works bureau use and mapping and i'll confirm the renoticing of the public notification does comply with article 25 section 1514 for personal wireless service facilities. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. i think between leo and i we have the bridges covered. so, just speaking briefly on the notification issue that we had with the last time what was uncover during the hearing was that the neighborhood planning mailing list we used did not have the district listed in
there and in the past dpw relied on those mailing lists, however, dpws mailing requirement is different from the planning requirement and it requires notice to the district supervisors and the reason why they weren't on the mailing list because they requested to be removed from the mailing list so i think through this process we've learned that how better to do the mailing process for dpw. there were minor clerical issues with the referral that we had initially issued and they've been corrected and reissued and again we believe that this is properly reviewed and proved and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. we will now hear from the appellant. you have three minutes. >> sorry. hang on. >> no problem, take your time. >> i'm just trying to get myself together. i wanted to address a couple of
things. i appreciate the notification that went out but i want to know why it is that the final determination is based purely on a depicted drawings on photos simulation and at no time did a city department person came out to inspect the proposed hide prior to the approval process so i find also that the city itself states that from page 2 of the sf planning department design preferences and i think alec was going to show that for me. that it suggested that the -- wireless carriers have expressed a interest in working collab ra lively with the city and community members to better integrate facilities a less intrusive manner and the
community was never notified prior to the approval process of this installation. so, i question and i will continue to question why there's such disregard for the community members and affected nearby residents when this is what it looks like from the neighbors' house. i did sort of a simulation of the wireless antenna on the six foot pole. it will be six feet with the antenna being two feet in height. and it is yet another visual obstruction to the scene. and this is -- these are photos directly from my neighbors' house from the living room and
the dinning room. i think the process is flawed. i think ha the city can't just approve a process like this, fifth design without coming out to do a site visit. i think it's really important and working with the neighbors and having a community meeting prior to the approval process, is essential because these -- i want to know why this particular location was considered and community outreach is vital for community members to feel some sense of agency in their own neighborhood. we live here. i would like to ask the commission, would you agree to something like this placed in front of your home? obscuring your view from your windows? that's what i'd like to ask.
thank you. >> thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. is there any public comment on this item? please, raise your hand. i see mr. silverman. please go ahead. >> yeah, thank you. thank you for this opportunity to comment. my name is herman and i live at 231 dwight street with my two daughters 13 and 16. they were born in this house and they've lived here since 2004. i love this city and my neighborhood. it's impossible to be pleased with any process to install two cellular antennas right above ones' head in the place they live. it's not an exaggeration. i'm right by the window you saw an image out of my window. it's over my head. i've tried to familiarize myself with the relevant documents to understand the equipment and the decision to approve its installation and there's a lot here.
there's the statements on april 29th from ham he had medicine and the planning approval on june 14th. department of public-health approval on the 22nd. the department of public works on the 30th. various mailings on july 1st which were responses inform the appeal from verizon's lawyers and the planning department. and it's a lot. it's disappointing to learn about this months after it began with the 15-day clock tick to go appeal. it's challenging to do this while juggling a job, being a single full-time parent, and in the middle of a covid pandemic with my kids going back to in-person school for the first time in 2019. a better process would have notified me and my neighbors about the application in april when they were already writing up their findings that would have given us time to educate ourselves about the process and the proposed equipment and instead i was immediately put on the defensive and in conflict with verizon and my city
planners. the process feels quite broken. so i ask you, everyone on this call, should you find yourself in a position to fix this process, at some point in the future with the vote or other means of influence, please imagine what the current process is like from the perspective of the effected residents and we're barely included and far too late to participate in a meaningful way. i understand that the planning department and the department of public-health and dpw have approved verizon's application and i disagree with their findings. for one, the initial approval from the planning department was just plain sloppy. it incorrectly identified at&t instead of verizon as the applicants and another place of words insert zoning district appeared instead of the actual directing. these basickers or bring into question the judgment behind the planning department's final decision and after all, if it can't be bothered to do a search and replace or proofread this official document, why should
anyone have faith the approval it grants is a result of any less effort. i had no faith in the planning department's decision. i would like to echo some of what laura september 11th i would have appreciated someone coming here and seeing in-person what this is all about. >> that's time, sir. >> thank you for this opportunity. >> is there any other public comment on this item? raise your hands. >> this matter is submitted. >> would any commissioner like to start? >> i would be inclined to deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. i haven't heard anything to suggest that it wasn't. >> i would concur as well and to the members of the public that are directly affected, you know,
this board is tasked with these mobile facilities on a regular, regular basis. and unfortunately, we're governed by a higher body that limits our ability to change or alter their plans and i know that's not making you feel warm and fuzzy but this body has consistently tried to change and put effect into the way that this unfolds and works out. so, without that, if any other commissioner has a comment, i believe that there's a motion on the table from commissioner lazarus. >> i don't see any other comments. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. >> commissioner chang had a comment. >> ok. >> thank you. >> commissioner chang. >> thank you. just really quickly, daryl, do you mind summarizing for the members of the public again the purview of the limitations.
i think you summarized it and i guess a better question is, where can they go if they wanted to change the process? that might be a question for the wireless provider but i think it's what we can provide for them. >> president honda: so just in short, this body is subject to article 25. everyone hears that repeated. basically, it's a federal statute that limits our ability to change or alter what is before us. and so, at that point the the only thing that could be really changed -- correct me. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, just to chime in here, deputy city attorney. article 25 is an ordinance that governs the process of issuing of these permits in the city and it complies with state and federal law which constrain the
city's ability to with regards to these types of permits. when the board reviews these types of permits, due apply the typical standard that would apply to a building permit which gives you a little more discretion to consider the impacts on the neighborhood. the board's review of these types of permits is limited to strict compliance with the article 25 requirements. and so, i think what you are trying to get at commissioner honda is the board's review is more constrained than it is in other circumstances and controlled by both federal and state law which is what article 25 incorporates. >> president honda: isn't that what i said? thank you. so without further adieu. >> we have a motion on the table to deny the appeal. uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion, commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and appeal is denied.
so, we are now moving on to item number 7, appeal number 21-064, george horrible versus the municipal transportation agency. appealing the issuance on july 9th, 2021 of the decision on reconsideration and sfmta versus george tax and medallion. he does not have a current california driver's license and eligible to possess an a card without those licenses the tax medallion can be revoked the notice of non renewal issued by taxi services is upheld and the ma dad yan is revoked. this is for further consideration and on september 1st, 2021, upon motion by commissioner lopez, the board voted 4-1. commissioner lazarus consented to continue this item to november 17th so the sfmta can provide data on medallions does not possess a current california driver's license or a card. the board requested the sfmta
provide data back to 1978 but it's not possible than at a minimum since the records were made electronically. so, we will hear from sfmta first. welcome. you have three minutes. >> good evening, president honda and commissioners. i'll the legal affairs manager for taxi access and mobility services at sfmta. this continued appeal is part of a larger enforcement effort undertaken by taxi access mobility services that began in 2019. in total, 257 medallion holders impacting 316 medallions including the medallion before you today, received the notices of non renewal and out of those 316, 57 were corporate and 87 were pre k and 173 were post k and again that is the class of
medallion that is before you today. out of that 316, 146 or almost half secured a renewal. 121 there was no response and those medallions were not renewed. in total there were 49 appeals and 16 of which went forward before the hearing officer and one of those was mr. horball's appeal. as requested, i searched the sfmta files which revealed a prior decision involving medallion 865 which went through the hearing officer and to the board of appeals and board of appeals upheld the ram indication and in addition, as
part of his renewal process, he signed what we refer to as the annual sworn statements and i think basketball then it was a form 1095 and so it wasn't a purely because he did not see a driver's license but that was one issue. currently the issue before you is mr. horball doesn't have a driver's license which is a requirement to have. and because he doesn't have an a card, his post k medallion is subject to non renewal or revocation, not having an a card is good cass and it's set by the
mta board and they have charter authority to regulate taxi and the proper venue for changing this, i forgot the term that mr. horball used in his previous but the proper venue for changing that law or that regulation would be with the mta board. thank you. >> we have a question from president honda. >> i'm trying to unmute here. >> president honda: thank you for looking that up. so, going over your brief, i see the 132 pages that were for the rev ovation for someone that has and it's funny enable our director was the hearing officer in that is there the type of revocation performed today so the inability to drive? were there any other cases besides this?
>> not that i was able to find. based upon the passed and on the grounds did not possess or an a card. but yeah, i don't have an exact number on the full-time driver requirement but i should distinguish this is not for or driving and because that was suspended when this notice went out. it's based upon the fact that the class of medallion post k requires the driver's license and that was it so we weren't going to. >> president honda: did you head the appellant's brief? >> yes. >> president honda: can you explain the three cases, i believe in 2003, that was heard before this body? >> i'm not sure. i can't explain that. i thought you were referring to the court case. >> president honda: in their brief, they state that there was four, four drivers that were --
that the department was trying to take their driver's license and this body overturned that and the appeal was upheld. you don't know about that? >> i do not. >> president honda: so you didn't read the brief. >> i did read the brief but i didn't read those cases on the board of appeals. >> president honda: -- >> i thought you were referring to the sloan and medallion case. >> >> president honda: the sloan case was listed right after the board of appeals so that's why i was asking because it appears that the body has precedence to overturn this case. that's why i was hoping to hear more input from you and if you don't that's fine. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from.
>> people called and they're confused whether or not they're going to be recognized when public comment comes up. i'll let george speak first, ok. >> ok. >> we give time for public comment. >> ensure that everyone has access. >> it's a problem where the people who are on the line watching this are not showing up in the gallery and don't have control of the icon to raise their hand and we'll figure this out. >> ok, sounds good. >> i'll let george speak first. welcome. >> welcome. >> hi. thank you, very much. my name is george and i'm the native san francisco so i have medallion 1303 and i'm 75-years-old or i will be tomorrow at any rate. i've driven a cab for 43 years in san francisco -- [please
change his original decision. but i want to read just above that, e-2. i'm going to read it slowly -- >> clerk: 30 seconds. >> thank you. let me find this. i'm having trouble finding this, but what it says, the hearing officer's decision shall take effect on the date the notice of the decision is served on the respondent, so it was final then, and subject only to appeals, so we ask you, when you discuss this at the beginning of your deliberations as to whether or not there should be a motion to throw out the reconsideration ruling and go back to the first one -- >> operator: thank you. that's fine. >> and find a [indiscernible]. thank you.
>> clerk: president honda? sorry. did you have a question? you're on mute. >> president honda: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> president honda: i've lost the little button to talk or not talk, which may be good for some of us. all i have is a screen right now. >> clerk: okay. we can hear you fine. >> president honda: okay. mute your audio. >> clerk: wait. you just clicked something. you put yourself on mute. >> president honda: yeah, there it goes. thank you. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. did you have a question? >> president honda: no. i was having difficulties, but it seems like it's solved
itself. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we have a question from commissioner lopez. >> commissioner lopez: okay. i did see the same question related in your brief to the 2003 decisions of the board. i did see that you included an excerpt of the rivera decision. i didn't see a full version of that decision. i also didn't see -- maybe i missed it, but i also didn't see excerpts of the other three decisions that you referenced here, and i just kind of wanted to get a little bit of background on were you able to locate full versions of that so we can review those and distinguish those materials if appropriate or just have full background and context of those
decisions? >> he's on mute. >> the 2003 hearing was very similar to george horbal. she came in in a wheelchair, and she asked to have a permit to be able to put a car on the street. they looked at the americans with disabilities act and felt that the job of the medallion holder was to put a car on the street. and then, it was taken away by
the language that quinton copp wrote that was how the board felt, that the a.d.a. prevailed over any municipal code that claimed that it didn't or that disability was limits to temporary disabilities or whatever the city is putting in their code. >> commissioner lopez: and one follow up. how would you distinguish that with, for example, the 2008 decision from this board related to medallion number 865 that mr. granite just referenced where, you know, a fair reading of that decision is that, you know, based on sloane, that we can't just eliminate one of the
fundamental variables for this permit, you know, based on the a.d.a., that the a.d.a. does not eliminate, you know, that fundamental requirement of having a driver's license. how would you distinguish your 2003s decision from the 2008 decision? >> well, they're entirely different in the 2008 decision pretty much is moral terpitude than anything else. but the other thing is there's actually nothing in the law or even in the code that says that the medallion holder has to have an eight-card or a driver's license, so that's what the driver is going to do. they're going to drive a taxi. so really, an allegation by the
agency that says a disabled medallion holder has to have a california driver's license is factually incorrect. it's not in the code. it's not in the law, it's not in the code. it's entirely different from a person who is a dangerous to public safety because of d.u.i.s and aberrant behavior. that's my answer. i think i answered it. >> commissioner lopez: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we are now moving onto public comment. if you would like to provide public comment, raise your hand. i do see [indiscernible] fonseca. i'm going to promote you to panelist, and we have a number of speakers, as well.
mr. fonseca? >> operator: three minutes, julie? >> clerk: yes. mr. fonseca? >> yes. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> the industry seems hell bent to keeping medallion holders from obtaining their permits under prop k. the media didn't [indiscernible] the m.t.a. brags about the medallion sales program successfully allowing older medallion holders to retire from the industry with dignity. now that the program has
failed, they want to kick out the most elderly medallion holders in the most heinous favor. i remind the commission that they have already ruled in the favor of mr. horbal. he should not be here at all. it's clear that mr. emory is twisting the arm of the commission. does mr. emory have the power to do that? is he committing any infraction? mr. horbal has given 43 years of his life to the taxi industry. he has given his physical and mental health to the industry and had a medallion before the convenient interpretation spin on prop k language. even though mr. horbal cannot drive anymore, i believe a.d.a. allows him to lease his lab to
a viable driver. i ask the commission to allow mr. horbal to keep his medallion. thank you. >> clerk: we're just going to pause for a moment. commissioner honda is having technical difficulties, so mr. longway is going to call him. the next speaker will be ronald [indiscernible]. we're taking a brief pause.
everyone's on there, and i have nothing on the bottom. it's just black. >> clerk: okay. you can mute yourself, president honda. >> clerk: -- regular meeting for the board of appeals for november 17, 2021. we are still on item number 7. this is appeal number 21-064, george horbal versus the sfmta, and we are at public comment. we just heard from marcell
fonseca, and now, we're going to hear from mr. ronald webb. mr. webb, are you there? let's see...can you unmute yourself, sir? i see you're here in the meeting. >> i've got a hand, i've got it on mute. i'm really not familiar with this. >> okay. we can hear you now. >> okay. my name is ronald walter. i'd like to speak in favor of mr. horbal. i've worked in the taxi business for more than 30 years. i hold medallion number 1252. i have a case -- i have a hearing pending at the m.t.a. that's similar to mr. horbal. i understand if the appeal is
upheld, the medallion would be denied mr. horbal. i was not aware of any a-card or driver's license rule until some months ago when the m.t.a. did not send a sticker to renew my medallion after i paid the required fees. we're all familiar with this requirement, this thing about keeping a driver's license and an a-card that's a separate on going requirement. i had not heard of that. mr. horbal -- oh, as far as the driving requirement, that requirement is currently not enforced, so there is no driving requirement at the current time, you know, due to the pandemic. mr. horbal is not violating -- not charged with violating the full time driving requirement, just his driver's license
a-card requirement. there is a letter in the file from charles rathburn. he required if he needed an a-card, and the staff required no he did not need one. i remind you again that, currently, the driving requirement is suspended. it's not really a question question in this case. as miss mcmurdaugh pointed out, the city should have been the one that one that appealed.
>> operator: 30 seconds. >> if this permit is revocated, that's going to be a loss. that's all i have to say. >> clerk: okay. we'll hear from mr. robert sesana. mr. sesana? mr. sesana, you had your hand raised? >> yes. good evening. can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. >> good evening. the first thing i wanted to point out after the george horbal revocation hearing, on september 7, the m.t.a. put out
a new rule, and the new rule is the hearing officer's decision may only uphold or overturn actions sought by the m.t.a. and shall not set conditions, special circumstances, special remedies, or other directives, and so shall they be based solely on the criteria set forth in article 111. the hearing officer's authority is relegated to the circumstances promulgated in that article and the sfmta board of directors. there is an inconvenient truth
for the m.t.a. after the ninth circuit decision, the m.t.a. started a sales program. the first program was the pilot program for disabled and old drivers. the criteria was 60 years or disabled. in the pilot program, it sold the whole target of 50 medallions. subsequently, in the following year of the full program, it agreed to sell more in disability, and this is the
direct result of the ninth circuit decision, and this is a failure for the board to argue this because it started a program in order to sell k medallions. in the second sales program, again, for k-driver over -- drivers over 60 or to sell their medallions was pretty successful. >> operator: that's time, sir. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. sesana. your time is up, mr. sesana. we will now hear from
dee corcos. please go ahead. dee corcos? >> unmute. okay. hello? >> clerk: hello. welcome. >> yes, thank you. i'm -- my name is denis corcosan. i'm driven almost four decades -- i've driven almost four decades. in that time, there's never been a prop k medallion revoked for not driving. in the last year, mr. krana was asked to show how many medallions were revoked for this reason, and he's had all this time to come up with a number, and really, the one that he came up with was a revocation for d.u.i. and lying under oath, and what carl said,
basically moral turpitude. right now is not the right time to do this. the m.t.a., in fact, has a disability program in place that, all of a sudden, it's not following. it's not honoring some of the long time negotiations and legal settlements that we have made with them. the sales program, which was supposed to be our out, a way to retire, is on hold. so because of that, i think that any revocation for not driving should also be on hold. so during the most recent trial between the sfmta and director of tag services was questioned
by mr. emory on the stand, and they were discussing about the -- things about the sales program, and she said that, back then, a certain number was, i don't know if it was 300, 400 drivers chose to retire by selling their medallions. they had that option then. we don't have that option now. so if you're disabled and can no longer drive and cannot sell your medallion, why should you lose your medallion? at the last hearing, commissioner swig said well, if there's no value to the medallion, what's the point? well, the medallion still brings in $400 to $500 a month, and someone on social security, limited income, that means a lot. so to revoke george's medallion at this point is simply wrong.
thank you. >> operator: 30 seconds. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from charles rathbaum. mr. rathbaum, you have three minutes. we can't hear you. please take yourself off of mute. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, thank you. welcome. >> thank you so much, and pardon my technical problems here. so my name is charles rathbaum, and i'm one of george horbal's fellow medal holders. mr. horbal won his process. the city was allowed to appeal, but they did not. the system is based on fair justice, and that is enough for
you to reject the hearing officer's request at the start of your deliberations and declare mr. horbal's medallion restored the fact is that for 40 years, following the passage of prop k, regulators did not enforce the driving requirement. first the police commission and then the taxi commission and then the board of appeals and finally the m.t.a. all knew that it was unsafe to encourage 70 and 80-year-old medallion holders to drive taxi cabs for hundreds of hours a year, certainly not for the sake of one poorly written phrase in prop k. and to be clear, cab drivers had no input into the writing of prop k. so after 40 years of nonenforcement, why all these
revocations now? the answer was revealed in a san francisco courtroom a few weeks ago. the credit union's trial brief and other court documents showed that the credit union pressured the m.t.a. to revoke the permits of nondriving medallion holders. they argued that leaving nondrivers with medallions made it harder to close down the other 200 medallions. this case and the dozens of similar cases that are following are about the city using cab drivers as pawns to appease and ultimately enrich the credit union in a fight that was not of the cab driver's making. it's dirty to pull against a cab driver, but especially in this case, a marine corps veteran. they should not be treated as
road kill in somebody else's lawsuit. don't let them put you, commissioners, in the position of penalizing mr. horbal. >> operator: 30 seconds. >> please, send this back to m.t.a. with a message to cleanup their unfair and unworkable rules. >> clerk: thank you. is there any further comment on this matter? please raise your hand. is there any further public comment? so i just want to make sure because mr. mcmurtaugh mentioned earlier that some people were having technical difficulties. is there anyone here who is not familiar with them that's present and they don't know how to raise their hand. >> operator: they can always use the chat function, as well. >> clerk: yes.
you can put a message in the chat. mr. mcmurtaugh, are you aware of anyone else who wanted to provide public comment? i just want to make sure that we get everyone -- give everyone an opportunity to speak. okay. alec, are you seeing any messages in the chat? >> operator: i'm not. >> clerk: okay. and i don't see any other hands raised. mr. mcmurtaugh, are you aware of anyone else who wanted to provide public comment? >> oh, i'm sorry. i didn't realize anyone was on mute. >> 415-24 [indiscernible] he had some difficulty getting in.
>> clerk: okay. mr. hines, press star, six on your phone. mr. hines, if you can hear me, try star, six. >> operator: what's last four digits? >> clerk: 0577. alec, you could also call him. >> operator: yeah, i can call him. >> clerk: okay. mr. hines, alec longway is going to call you, so that way, you'll be able to make public comment.
>> clerk: welcome, mr. hines. >> hello? >> clerk: welcome. you have three minutes. >> hello? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> yes. can anyone hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> my name is dan hines, and i'd like to speak primarily about the a.d.a. sloane lawsuit, which i sent a message to the board earlier in the
week. and i was part of that a.d.a. lawsuit until it's conconclusion, and i would like to -- there's some points of mr. krana that i disagree with. the first is when the court of appeals approves a settlement agreement and authorized participation of mr. [indiscernible] for their expanded disability and pilot sales program, that that mooted the federal district court's decision. mr. krana keeps talking about judge white's decision as if it carries the weight of law, and although i'm no lawyer, i don't think that's the case. secondly, the disability program, to my knowledge, was extended to all disabled medallion holders, not just
those with temporary disability. in fact, i know of no case where a person was disqualified from the program for being permanently rather than temporarily disabled. and third, and also relevant to that point is the three-year limitation in the program was designed to have a.d.a. protections, not to distinguish between temporary and permanent disability. it seems like the sfmta in fact is trying to use a technicality to create an intent. and the city is creating an intent for members of the board of appeals and also the hearing officer to consider taking medallions away from disabled
medallion holders, who can't work, and their only hope for assistance is if this medallion will, at some point, have some value restored to it. the city wanted to take this away, and i hope you don't allow it. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. hines. any further public comment? press star, nine, and that will be the equivalent of raising your hand. okay. i do not see any other hands raised, so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president honda: so would anyone like to start off? if not, i will. so i believe we continued this case. one of the questions that i had asked the department was how many disabled drivers had been
or their medallions had been revocated, and the department was mainly focused on one driver, and that was because that driver had three d.u.i.s and was effectively lying and a bunch of other stuff. i don't think that's equivalent here. i think there's a lot of moving parts, and as members of the public have stated, the compensation is on hold. we are still in a major pandemic. i don't think a decision like this should be made to revoke someone's livelihood. when this program was designed, drivers thought that this would potentially be their retirement. going forward, language was changed, and i understand that, but again, i don't think the equity and the fairness is there. i don't think that no one would
want someone to drive that has gone past the age to drive. i don't think that's fair in any stretch of the imagination, and so, and this board in the past -- and although it was not brought up completely, as commissioner lopez has mentioned, this body has ruled against the revocation of drivers that were disabled. and to do this during a -- to do this during a pandemic where there's already a hold on it, to me, that's a terrible decision for me personally. so at minimum, i would like this to be continued until at least the compensation portion -- i mean, there's so many moving parts. the brief was extremely long, and we have another one following it.
going over it was quite difficult, and i had to reread and reread and reread. but at this point, i don't feel comfortable review indicating someone's license because they're disabled and because they've done 40 years of service. whether or not that's popular or not popular, i'll see with the vote, but would any other commissioner like to chime in? >> commissioner lazarus: i'll go ahead. i think this is the correct interpretation of the driving code. i understand your point of view, and i'm a firm believer that timing in life is everything. i would not personally feel comfortable granting this appeal or overturning it and restoring it, so the only thing i would consider would be some sort of a continuation which, i
believe, will keep this suspended and -- i mean maybe we do it to the call of the chair when some of these other issues have been resolved. i agree the legal issues are very complicated, and it's easy to get lost in the thread, but i'm not prepared to restore this medallion. >> president honda: okay. thank you, commissioner lazarus. commissioner lopez or commissioner chang? >> commissioner chang: i echo the comments of what commissioner honda just said, that i have a hard time revoking someone's medallion
and license. >> president honda: okay. commissioner lopez? >> commissioner lopez: yeah. i think my comments showed kind of where i was seeing this question. i don't think anything that i've seen in the briefings has really changed my opinion too much. i definitely appreciate mr. krana's work in bringing us the enforcement data, but i kind of see it the same way as president honda has described. in my mind, i really distinguish the 2008 decision on medallion 865 based on the d.u.i.s, and i just don't see a similar interest here and, you know, i think the point that the code doesn't explicitly create space for equitable balancing i think is clear.
for me, if you look at the -- the -- our charter, our city charter creating the m.t.a., in the charter, it explicitly called out social justice as the goals of the m.t.a. specifically. i think we're looking at a de facto kind of a.d.a. issue, particularly when we don't have a driving requirement during the pandemic, and i think for all those reasons, i think the most i can get comfortable with would be a continuance, but otherwise, i would support upholding the -- reinstating the permit. >> president honda: thank you. commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: yeah. i just want to clarify,
continuing this really has no net effect. the medallion holder isn't driving, can't drive, and so what we're basically allowing is for him to hang onto the medallion until we bring this back. >> i agree. and so just for the newer commissioners, it requires four to overturn the permit. i don't believe we have four here, but three to continue, and if three voted to -- to grant the appeal, then, we would have to holdover until vice president swig was able to vote because he would be the deciding vote. but i would go for a continuance. i think it would be just a defining event. >> clerk: i think you should
specifically state what is the triggering event for getting this back on calendar? >> president honda: unfortunately, i think we were specific of what information we needed to continue this case, and the department did not provide that. what they provided was a single case of a derelict driver that continued to drive under the influence, and that is not this matter. these are people that are disabled that are unable to drive either by age or disability. like i said, i wouldn't want to force someone to choose. as vice president swig said last time, we know and understand the medallion value is very little at this point, so why go for the low hanging fruit there? >> clerk: i guess that's a little different than the enforcement actions. i guess i want to be clear if you're making a motion to continue. >> president honda: yeah, i'm making a motion -- >> clerk: since the sales
value at this point. >> there are no purchasers. >> clerk: okay. thank you. president honda? you're on mute. >> president honda: oh, sorry. commissioner lazarus -- i see commissioner lopez has his hand up. >> commissioner lopez: just so that we're clear, if we can direct this to mr. krana, is the department that you just mentioned, is that different than the medallion transfer program? >> yeah, that's the same thing. we interchanged the purchased medallion -- the code name for them is transferrable. 1116 is the taxi medallion
transfer -- there cannot be a transfer if there is not a purchaser. there's no guarantee that these medallions may be sold. >> so in your interpretation, the on going litigation has no impact on the liquidity of the medallions under the existing program? >> the jury found in favor of sfmta, so the litigation is
resolved. >> commissioner lopez: dow have a time frame on that? >> late october -- between the individual hearing and this continuance, so yes, the jury found in favor of the sfmta. >> president honda: i'm sorry. i see carl's, the agent for the appellant's hand up. i'm sorry. we're in deliberation right now. >> does that impact your briefings, your kind of impetus for enforcement at all of this? >> no. >> commissioner lopez: okay. thank you. >> president honda:
commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: so if we're talking about something that has no value, and it's not clear when or if value will be restored, and if the commissioners feel that, according to the code, that the right decision was made to revoke the medallion, then i'm not sure where we are. >> president honda: to me, it's kind of bait and switch, and there's no fairness in that. if i sell a house, and i sell
it at $200,000, i can't go back and say i want $225,000. people have mentioned for 40 years that there has been no revocation for someone that's been disabled, and further and more, this body has heard and rejected the argument of disabled. furthermore, there was something regarding sloane that you don't want to force an elderly or disabled person to choose between their livelihood and endangering the public safety. to me, i think this is wrong. and maybe i don't have the votes for it, but i'll make a motion to grant the appeal and to reinstate the permit. and then, if there's only three bodies, or there's only two. if there's three, then it will
be continued to vice president swig, and he can be the heavy hammer. so that's my motion. >> clerk: okay. and what basis are you making this motion? >> president honda: i'm make it go on the basis that -- want to help me out, brad? >> clerk: mr. porianda is here. >> president honda: sorry, zach. >> i believe your reason would be to overturn the hearing officer. >> president honda: okay, and what would be the basis? >> i believe it would be up to you to make the basis for that. i believe it would be that you didn't find an adequate basis to revoke the medallion. >> president honda: okay. thank you very much, and i like your shirt, by the way. so that would be my motion. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion to grant
the appeal on the basis that president honda did not find an adequate basis for the nonrenewal. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion fails. we need four votes. is there another motion on the table? >> president honda: i will make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. >> clerk: okay. we still have a missing vote. we can continue it for the purposes of getting a vote from vice president swig, and president honda, i would like to remind you that cases
generally go to the call of the chair for a specific triggering event or by agreement of the parties. and one hasn't been met yet. >> president honda: minimum would be a continuance. i don't feel that the disabled drivers should lose their ability to -- to put food on their table, and we're not talking -- please help me out, commissioner lopez. you're going to send me a lifeline, buddy? >> commissioner lopez: what i would suggest is we talked a little bit about the 2003 -- the four 2003 decisions that were in the permit holder's brief and, you know, it seemed like maybe the agency wasn't able to review those and distinguish them for us in
order to give us the full background of their perspective on those decisions this evening. i think the permit holder also didn't give us full decisions for those matters, so i think the excerpts were somewhat helpful, but, you know, it would be good to have a full context of those decisions before we assess what was actually held in those decisions by this body, so that's one thing that i would find helpful, and potentially we could move to continue to have full briefing on those four decisions. >> commissioner chang: and just to add to that, do we think that this body has a clear enough understanding of what the medallion holder is able to do with the medallion, given the current circumstances? for example, he is disabled and
unable to drive, and he doesn't hold a card, likes for future renewal instances? >> president honda: well, i think this body's able to make that decision, and we have eight or 16 cases that this would have an effect on that. >> commissioner chang: mr. krana, how often do you have to renew? >> clerk: i'm sorry. commissioner chang, we have deputy city attorney who would
like to comment. >> if you would like further briefing from the parties because it's going to be continued, you can instruct them to address this specific issue. >> clerk: thank you. >> president honda: thank you very much. so i'll make a motion to continue these matters and that -- >> clerk: we haven't heard the other one. we're just on horbal right now. >> president honda: i would move to continue this case to give the department time to brief the decisions that this board heard in 2008. >> clerk: you mean in 2003? >> president honda: 2003, thank you. >> clerk: okay. so you basically want -- and also possibly for the missing vote of vice president swig, so he can participate.
>> president honda: of course. >> clerk: so what date would you like to continue this to? >> i think we can speak to the department, mr. krana, and see how long that they would need, and then see if that would work with the appellants. >> clerk: mr. krana? >> yeah, i'm reviewing the calendar. is it every wednesday? are there wednesdays, obviously, other than holidays? >> clerk: well, we wouldn't really consider it until january. january 5, january 12. january 26, vice president swig will be absent, so i don't recommend that date. >> okay. >> clerk: or we could move in february. but january would be january 5 or january 12. in february, it would be february 9 or february 16. >> how about february, please. >> clerk: okay.
commissioners, any date in february, unless -- commissioner chang? >> commissioner chang: yes. i would appreciate if mr. krana can answer the question, if possible, about -- does this renew every year or would this come before us next year? >> generally speaking, medallions are annual t. is ae on the disk will year, so july 1 through june 30. but due to the -- medallions are annual. it's on the fiscal year, so july 1 through june 30. due to the pandemic, that was
suspended. i can't tell you how many there will be due to compliance. i think i mentioned at the beginning, there were 142, so provided those 142 are still in compliance, they will also be renewed, as well. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. so we have february 9 or february 16. president honda? mr. horbal or mr. mcmurdaugh? >> whatever you decide is fine. >> clerk: okay. february 16, and president honda, do you want to continue this so the parties can provide briefing on the three cases in
the appellant's brief from 2003? >> president honda: that's correct. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from president honda to continue this item to february 16, 2022 so the partying can provide additional information to the board on the three cases cited in the appellant's brief from 2003. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so that motion carries, 4-0, and this item is continued. so we are now moving onto the next item, and -- one moment. so that is item number 8. that is appeal 21-069, jamie cortesos versus municipal transportation agency,
appealing the issuance on july 22, 2021, of the reconsideration of statement of decision, sfmta versus james cortesos, revocation of medallion number 753. james cortesos does not have a current california driver's license and is not eligible to possess an a-card. without these licenses, the taxi medallion can be revoked pursuant to the transportation code. the notice' nonrenewal issued by the sfmta taxi services is upheld and the medallion is revoked. i don't know if, based on the last case, we should continue this, but mr. cortesos, you have seven minutes. >> president honda: julie, what
do you think? >> clerk: they can waive their time, based on the continuance. >> president honda: when you're talking -- >> operator: your mic is crunchy. >> clerk: okay. i'm sorry. i don't know. >> operator: it's not just you. >> clerk: i don't know. i'm close to my router, so -- >> president honda: yeah. it just seems like there's a lot of static when you speak. >> clerk: okay. how about if i take the camera off? is that better? >> president honda: nope, nope, nope. >> operator: i think it's your hardware that might be affected. >> clerk: okay. i'm sorry. i don't know what to do. >> president honda: yeah. >> clerk: okay. deputy city attorney porianda? >> i just want to point out
under section 7 of the rules, the board may grant scheduling continuances, so either party can cite there's a missing member, and that that may change the vote, so that would be a sufficient basis and an opportunity to provide additional briefing on the issue, so you can use the rationale for your last one for this one. again, it would be based on the request of all the parties. >> president honda: okay. thank you very much for your guidance. >> clerk: okay. it sounds like -- okay. so mr. cortesos, you heard the last case. do you want to make a motion that the matter be continued or do you want to proceed with your case tonight?
and you're on mute. we can't hear you. >> okay. you can continue it. i have all the time in the world. i'm 74 years old, and i'm totally disabled. >> clerk: okay. i think we should all hear from the taxi services. mr. porianda? >> am i allowed to say something or no? >> clerk: yes, you will. one moment, please. mr. porianda? >> i was just going to say, you should point out if there's any opposition from taxi services. >> clerk: okay. thank you. okay. so we just heard from mr. cortesos. mr. mcmurdaugh, did you want to say anything else? >> yes, i did. if you're going to have public comment, the agency just submitted a brief, and i have a lot of issues with what was said, and they're different than what was in the other
case. >> clerk: okay. if you're representing mr. cortesos -- >> yes, that's right. >> clerk: okay. so do you want to move ahead with the case? the motion on the table is do you want to continue it or go ahead with the case? >> are you asking me or mr. cortesos? >> president honda: the question is very clearly. the appellant in this case has asked -- or the permit holder has asked, and he's fine with the continuance. so are you fine with the continuance or not fine with the continuance? >> i think you'll end up having one, but i personally had some things to say, but okay fine. >> clerk: you can confer with your client. >> okay.
>> president honda: okay. >> clerk: why don't we hear from taxi services. mr. krana? >> given the close similarity of the two appeals, at this point, there is no objection to a continuance if the board [indiscernible]. >> clerk: okay. i think we should get the motion on the table, and then, we will have to take public comment, but for members of the public, we're really not discussing the substance of the case. what would be my substance, julie? >> clerk: we want a continuance so that all parties can provide
briefing on the issue. >> president honda: and our deputy city attorney is going to school us. >> in accordance with all issues shown. >> president honda: okay. >> clerk: we have a motion -- >> operator: public comment? >> clerk: well, first, i'm going to put the motion on the table and then we'll hear public comment. so we have a motion from president honda to continue this to february -- let me just double-check that date -- 26, i believe. >> operator: february 16. >> clerk: i'm sorry. february 16, upon the request and consent of the parties and for good cause shown so that the parties can provide a briefing on the three cases mentioned in the previous appeal, mr. horbal. so that's the motion on the table. and now, we'll have public
comment. i see a couple of hands raised. marcelo fonseca. >> i'd like to thank the board for continuing this. i know that the taxi medallion issue is complex. there are two issues for a taxi medallion. when i'm not driving my cab, yellow cab will lease it to another driver, so there used to be a compensation, a monthly compensation for the medallion. k medallions get zero at the moment, but there is also, if the medallion market ever picks up again, there is the option to sell the medallion, but i
don't think that medallion will have a $250,000 value ever again. i just want to give you this information that there are two values to attach to a medallion. not much more to say. i just want to thank this board, especially president honda for your kind words, understanding that this is not the right time to make such a cruel decision. i know there's a lot for you to learn about the taxi industry. we take a lot of pride in what we do for a living, and it's very appreciated that you're looking at this very carefully. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. ronald wolter, you have three minutes. >> hi. this is ronald wolter.
this hearing started with a question of whether there were any revocations solely for violating the rule for the lack of a california driver's license or an a-card since 1978, and we found there were zero. and the other point i'd like to make is the sfmta put out on its website that it's looking for change in the future, and possibly looking to lower the auction price on these permits, the post-k permits, and i'm sorry. i don't have the text of the article, but the m.t.a. does have an announcement on its website in recently days that
it's looking for change and will do -- reach out to the public for input and, during 2022, there will be changed, i hope, to this whole system. thank you. that's all my comments. >> clerk: okay. is there any other public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any other public comment, so again, on the table, we have a motion from president honda to continue this item to february 16 upon the request and consent of the parties for good cause shown so that the missing commissioner can participate and we can get briefing on the three cases referenced in mr. horbal's case, mr. horbal from the prior appeal.
city attorney porianda, if you're still here, for your help and guidance. >> president honda: yes, thank you. >> clerk: okay. i see -- well, deputy city attorney russi, you're here? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: okay. welcome back. okay. so everyone, we are on item number 9, philip father versus department of building inspection, at 1527 mcallister street, appealing the issuance on september 22, 2021, to sherrie matza, of an alteration permit, addiction of wood deck in rear yard to cover excavated area from previous abandoned
permit to address notice of violation. mr. father, you have seven minutes. >> hi. i have a few slides based on the documents i submitted, so i'm going to try to make the technology work here, and if it works, otherwise, i will depend on alec to get me through. but can we see the screen or somebody respond? >> clerk: yes, we can see it. >> okay. i'll just stay in this mode. so just for a little bit of context, we're kitty-corner to alamo square, which is important because this is a historic resource. so the excavation of the swimming pool that's in question, you can see there on the red arrow. so we're just a block away. we're not in an industrial section or a mixed use area. a little bit of context on the
crater that you can see. it was unpermitted excavation with almost pure vertical cuts at that go down almost 15 feet in some locations. it was an application of unreinforced topical slurry with no inspections of this work. so the owners just went off and did what they wanted to do, but it was also with no regards to the neighbors or people, so no record to neighbor, no record to people. if we were notified properly, i'm sure san francisco would have done a hearing. i think that department of building inspection would have given us protections that we would have been notified.
the owners can do what's appropriate to improve their property, but they have to support and provide protections to our lands, as well, and that has not been done. and just on this picture, you can see how deep the vertical cuts are, and if you take a look at the car in the parking lot behind, average car length is 15 feet, so you can imagine that turning tail to head and see that that south wall is 15 feet deep, so it's quite an excavation. the crater creates health safety life issues. so the imperative is address the whole crater. the application is insufficient, and that the crater is the source of vector
problems, and the building department provides two courses of action. the pool fills with water, and the only way to drain it is the pump that you see in the top corner, but there's cracks all over the place, and the cracks are visible. there's openings. all right? this is just topical slurry, so it's cracks and it opens, and it's not providing any structural support whatsoever. so what happened is the notice of violation is issued, but a permit is then issued to address the notice of violation that says hey, we want to construction a pool deck. there's no imperatives to address the hole, and then, we just throw stuff on it in a
slurry with no real significant structural reinforcement and no addressing the problems of the vectors. so what we're -- what we wind up here with is improper mat. how do those problems equate to making a deck? that deck is actually going to go over the water that i just showed you, and it actually exacerbates the rodent problem. they hire an architect that says oh, i visually inspected everything that says it's okay to proceed. so we've diminished down the neighborhood process to giving the voice to one person to authorize this to move forward. it's really, really improper. so while the e.o.r. has spoken, what about the following? there's no soils report referenced by the e.o.r.
i've just shown you cracks. there's no reinforcement or rebar in the slurry, there's water in the equation, and there's cracks in the slurry. and if you just draw a straight line between the north fence and the line, you can see that the fence has moved. my property is actually moving and will collapse into the swimming pool because it's not reinforced, and that's why all the cracks are there. so based on what the e.o.r. did, i just decided to go out and get another opinion. so i went to michael camrada, a respected structural engineer, and as you have this letter in your possession, we'll just repeat two things. the absence of a conventional retaining wall is alarming.
you've got a big pit, no retaining wall. in our professional opinion, it should either be backfilled or put in a conventional retaining wall and done soon. this is standard engineering practice. what do we mean by standard engineering practice? these are examples of proper retaining walls. if you're going to go up in excess of 9 feet, you're looking at something that's 12 to 24 inches thick, and reinforced with two mats of rebar. these pictures abound, and these analyses abound on the internet. it's not rocket science.
so why is this coming now because it's been around for 15 years. we approached the mcallister neighborhood several times, and we were told, don't worry about it. we've offered to fill it, but then, through d.b.i., we learned they weren't, and we got ahold of the reports that showed long-term significant cracks. all right. so what's ahead? we're going to get more rain because of climate -- >> operator: that's time. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. we're going to hear from mr. [indiscernible] mcneal on behalf of the permit holder. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners.
n.o.v., so the n.o.v. is resolved in our minds by a geotechnical approach that reviewed the excavation and reviewed the rock conditions, and part of our lease [indiscernible] every step that was, you know, warranted at the time, and the n.o.v. was resolved with the geotechnical approach. this deck, it's not just a deck
to fill a hole. the water is free draining. so we've had some heavy rains recently, and the pictures that the appellant was showing was directly after the heavy rains about two weeks ago, and that's the first time that water has pooled in the excavation. typically, it leaves, it drains over night or [indiscernible], and i guess that's pretty much the technical side of it. sherrie matza is here, and i'd like to cede the rest of my time to sherrie. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes -- you're on mute. okay. >> first of all, let me say
that the appellant's brief is pure fantasy. pure fantasy. [indiscernible] which, according to our technical report shows that there's a safety [indiscernible] secondly, mr. father, i'll be straight with you, has continued to harass us for more than a decade. he called the public health department. the public health department came out a few days ago. i put the e-mail in my packet, but they came out after [indiscernible] i have an e-mail from the public health department saying i am confirming that i am closing
this complaint case. this is sophia hui of the department of public health. i guarantee and i told the complainant that there is no standing water, no -- >> operator: 30 seconds. >> i'm sorry? >> operator: you have 30 seconds. >> and mr. father does not live on the property. he's been remodelling his property for 14 years. if there's any problem with the property, it's his problem. thank you. >> if i may, [indiscernible]. >> operator: that's your time. >> clerk: you'll have time in
rebuttal. president honda, did you have your hand up? >> president honda: i did, but i'll wait until after public comment. >> clerk: okay. let's hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. there is no permit for the pool. i'll turn it over to joe duffy and i think there's larger
issues that d.b.i. can address during their presentation. thank you. >> president honda: i have a question. so if the property was never restored back to its original condition, what is the issue? >> well, there's several ways you can address the complaint. it's just the issue there's no permit for the work that is there now, at least none that i could find, and i think there's a long history with this and the adjacent property that d.b.i. can better address. >> president honda: no, the board of history never hears a long history of neighbors.
>> clerk: it's time for the department of building inspection. >> i'm going to give you the usual overview of the permits, but then i am also available to answer any questions about the cancellations of permits and notice of violation. so neville, if you don't mind, i'll start. joe duffy, d.b.i. there is a permit for a rear deck in the yard to cover the area of previously abandoned areas. the permit was -- it was issued by d.b.i., and it was reviewed by planning, as well, and it was not applicable to the planning department. the notice of violation, we received one on 2 july 2021
that led to a notice of violation on 26 july 2021. [indiscernible] and ranges from approximately 4 feet to 8 foot in depth. concrete poured against areas excavated earlier. there was a per any time in 2003, was cancelled on 7-12-2004. the corrective action that the department and the notice of violation stated was to obtain the services of a structural engineer to assess the situation, obtain a building permit with plans, and option one was to legalize described above or return the property to the grid that existed before excavate. state permit on property
application. personally, i don't think that there was -- i do agree with mr. sanchez that the 2003 permit did get through review, and there are notes in the building documents that notates a building wall and footings, and the permits for the deck does not address that issue. i will turn it over to our deputy director, neville, who will probably give some more technical expertise on the structural elements. thank you. >> thank you, joe. president honda, members of the commission. president honda, you have your honda up. do you have a question? >> clerk: you're on mute, president honda.
>> president honda: no, i just have my hand up. i'll wait until you're done. >> got it. the question is how do we respond to a complaint how long after the violation occurred? you've got to understand that the department only reacts when complaints come in. we can't possibly know all the violations that are out there, so that's why we responded to with the notice of violation so long after the violation got done. so from a structural perspective, the vertical cuts, the shotcrete that was installed without a permit or the benefit of inspection needs
special inspection. it's the nature of the concrete placement. it needs supervision during installation, it needs testing during the time it's done, which is probably it's cracking, which is a real concern. that process is codified, and none of that is verified. there was no reinforcing in the concrete, as well. shotcrete does need reinforcing. the applicant -- sorry. not the appellant, the permitee said that caltrans regularly, it does this method. caltrans gunniting out or shotcreting is reinforced. this isn't. the other concern is the
vertical cut in the rear, as you can see from the parking lot, there's the cars. i can see as i reviewed the plans for the deck, the dimensions on the permitted drawings for the deck show a large amount of deck over the hole, and the vertical cut is almost up to the property line in the rear and up the sides. that shows 10 feet on the drawings. that's not consistent with the
photographs that we saw. my other concern is the finish with the gunnite. the deck is going to be two-by framing, pretty regular. so off the peripherals off the deck, you have these voids. there's no consideration of guard rails, so potentially, a small child can wander and fall into these voids. that's a concern, a safety concern, as well. we've already heard about the collection of water under the deck, which is a possible vector issue and helps accelerate the deterioration of framing for the -- the support structure, and we had a confirmation that this is a free draining and usually drains within a day or so -- >> operator: that's time.
thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: president honda, did you want him to finish? is. >> president honda: yes, i want to finish his statement on the draining. >> thank you, president honda. because the surface is draining, if they continue with the construction of the deck, we would want to know the percolation of the soil because based on the underlying photographs, it doesn't drain very quickly, and that concludes my testimony. >> clerk: thank you. >> president honda: so i have a question. so first of all, are you going to be our new joe duffy? >> no. joe duffy, there's no replacing joe duffy. >> president honda: i know. i'm already crying because of scott, but now, joe, too.
question is, we've heard two sides, and from what i can gather, there was a permit taken out for the pool, but at some point, it was withdrawn, so for them to go forward, they have a choice to go forward with infilling or to put retaining walls because the shotcrete does not have rebar and the drawings are inaccurate or incorrect because they have deckings around where it's not their land. >> i would agree with most of that statement, that's correct. an application, they went through the process of the application that was never materialized, right? the permit was never pulled, and so we weren't able to verify the excavation, the special inspections, and so on and so forth that was required. >> president honda: okay. last question.
i'm going to ask a rick swig question. so deputy director duffy, what would you recommend in this case? >> thank you, president honda. i think they should address the vertical cut and the excavation. that issue needs to be on a permit, and it should have probably been on this permit. i think this permit was improperly reviewed and issued by our department, unfortunately. i did speak to mr. father around the time that the permit got issued, and he had filed his appeal within days, and in all likelihood, d.b.i. would have looked at it and revoked it or at least issued a stop work order. if they do want to maintain the
the prurient excavated area, they need to make sure that it's sealed, but the cuts were never addressed on any permit. the cancelled permit doesn't mean anything. whenever a permit is cancelled, it was approved, i give them that. it was -- there was a set of plans, it was approved. we don't know what those plans show. d.b.i. doesn't have them because whenever we cancel a permit, we destroy the documents and cancel the permit, and the owner is sent out a notice before we do that. with the sprague of the concrete, i doubt that was very much part of the permit, and as mr. father pointed out, d.b.i.
does have concerns about that. i think the structural engineer that gave the appellant his opinion is not that far wrong. there's a comment in the brief there that i think would be consistent with what the department wants. >> president honda: and just so you know, i didn't mean to bypass you, mr. pierre. that's a question we address to joe on a fairly regular basis. i really say this, but from what the permit appears, from what the work that was done, would you just recommend just cancelling this permit and having them start from fresh because it doesn't seem like it's correct in any manner. >> i'm sorry. do you want to talk about that? >> well, sorry, neville.
>> clerk: is that your preparation? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. president honda has a question. >> president honda: they both stated that the property needs to be worked on in accordance with what they just said, and unfortunately, a permit issued in error is not honored by the city. we hear lots of cases. this is kind of challenging of a case.
>> i can't do anything with that area. i want the deck. i want it to be done safely. >> president honda: so the question, miss matza, are you willing to keep the deck and in-fill or are you going to do something else? >> i think we'll have to look at our options. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i think neville did a good job of providing the issues. thank you.
>> president honda: scott, last words on the board of appeals. >> good night. >> president honda: is that really what you want your last words to be, good night? >> clerk: okay. we'll now hear from the department of building inspection. >> i think it would be what the permit would require. if they wish to keep an excavated area and put a deck on top, it's whatever neville will ask for. neville, are you still there? >> yes, i am, joe, and i think president honda understands the issue exactly. if they were to leave the excavation the way it was, it would need foundation and retaining walls. it would appear that infilling
it -- the department is not in a position to tell the applicant what to do, but just looking at the two options, it would appear that the infilling would be the least expensive and least problematic. >> clerk: okay. thank you. anything further from d.b.i.? >> no. i think the question was, you know, would we consider the geotechnical engineer's advice to keep the slurry the way it was? standard engineering practice would say no to that.
>> once i got the hang of it a little bit, you know, like the first time, i never left the court. i just fell in love with it and any opportunity i had to get out there, you know, they didn't have to ask twice. you can always find me on the court. [♪♪♪] >> we have been able to participate in 12 athletics wheelchairs. they provide what is an expensive tool to facilitate basketball specifically. behind me are the amazing golden state road warriors, which are
one of the most competitive adaptive basketball teams in the state led by its captain, chuck hill, who was a national paralympic and, and is now an assistant coach on the national big team. >> it is great to have this opportunity here in san francisco. we are the main hub of the bay area, which, you know, we should definitely have resources here. now that that is happening, you know, i i'm looking forward to that growing and spreading and helping spread the word that needs -- that these people are here for everyone. i think it is important for people with disabilities, as well as able-bodied, to be able to see and to try different sports, and to appreciate trying different things. >> people can come and check out this chairs and use them. but then also friday evening, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., it will be wheelchair basketball we will make sure it is
. >> clerk: good afternoon. i'll be co-chairing the meeting. welcome everyone. we'll go ahead and start with roll call. good afternoon. so if the council members are present could broadcast to the channel and let us know that you're here. we will be broadcasting this live on sfgov tv and it is open captions and i will be -- we will be working with a different format today with